What is a tougher? American Football OR Rugby
American Football
Side Score: 4
|
 |
Rugby
Side Score: 10
|
|
|
|
|
1
point
American Football has much more impact on the human body than Rugby. Sure, Rugby has no pads, but that point is moot. American Football has over 4,800 lbs of force compared to 1,700 lbs of force from the Rugby player. Plus, this video was done by Quentin Jammer, imagine if it was Clay Matthews or Ray Lewis who make 10-12 tackles a game. Football Side: american football
3
points
Rugby has no pads, but that point is moot. Why is this now? Even your video showed that the rugby player was more likely to sustain injury. They don't wear helmets either, is this also moot.? American Football has over 4,800 lbs of force compared to 1,700 lbs of force from the Rugby player. To be honest the rugby players they used in this "non-biased" study were weedy looking guys, compared to people like Jonah Lomu or Paul O' Connell. American football does have some really big guys I'll agree, but they are padded and protected, plus the stop-start play makes for plenty of time to rest, rugby is straight forward brawling for two forty minute halves. So on to the video as I've stated the players they used for the rugby, who are they? Also the rugby tackle was done using real people, the American football had a crash test dummy, a dummy designed to properly measure impact, although the football player does hit harder, I'm sure on average this is true, it doesn't make it a tougher game. Side: Rugby
1
point
Even your video showed that the rugby player was more likely to sustain injury. They don't wear helmets either, is this also moot.? Sure, there is more potential of a head injury, but it doesn't compare to getting at 4,800 lbs of force over your entire body. To be honest the rugby players they used in this "non-biased" study were weedy looking guys, compared to people like Jonah Lomu or Paul O' Connell. American football does have some really big guys I'll agree, but they are padded and protected, plus the stop-start play makes for plenty of time to rest, rugby is straight forward brawling for two forty minute halves. Those pads don't protect as much as you think. There are still multiple injuries all the time. So on to the video as I've stated the players they used for the rugby, who are they? I don't know. Also the rugby tackle was done using real people, the American football had a crash test dummy, a dummy designed to properly measure impact, although the football player does hit harder, I'm sure on average this is true, it doesn't make it a tougher game. I think getting hit to the equivalent of a 35 mph crash is pretty tough. They used a crash dumbie because of the severity of the hit. 3 times the force of the rugby. Side: american football
2
points
It's been a while since I've seen the video but from memory the rugby guys were a bunch of amateurs from San Francisco tackling their own team. This seems decidedly unscientific compared to the American Football scenario. There are many players weighing 220 - 260 lb that hit hard in rugby, unlike the examples in the video. One thing that was highlighted is the fact that the pads disperse the force over a greater area of the body so not just one section of the body is taking the impact, unlike rugby. I'd suggest you have a look at a few youtubes on rugby league and rugby union hits (yes, two different sports). Note that in union the player needs to attempt to wrap his arms around the opponent whereas a hit is still legal in league. Not disputing the need for pads in American Football as the rules on tackling and the nature of the game require it but rugby league and union are tougher. I'm a league fan myself and some players will play over 30 games a year not including pre season games including 5 - 10 representative games (state vs state, country vs country). This is the key difference as it's the best of the best playing the best of the best for pride in your state or country. Oh, and the little guys in rugby, the equivalent to quarterbacks, have to make tackles. It's often a ploy in league to run bigger men at the little guys to tire them out for when they are on offense. Side: Rugby
1
point
I think rugby out muscles american football any day. you have no pretection in rugby league or union were as the hits maybe harder in american football but all of the impact is taken out by the pads, also the skill in tackling is alot higher, afl you just throw your body at them and everywhere is protected atleast us rugby boys and scared to cop a real injurie. Side: American Football
|
Having played both american football (as an inside linebacker) and fifteens rugby (as an openside flanker) at the D-II collegiate level, as well as currently playing sevens rugby at the mens' senior level, I have to say that it depends on what factor of the game you are looking at. I've been run over by an offensive lineman who has a hundred pounds and five inches on me, drilled running backs at a full sprint, and I've rucked an mauled my way through eighty minutes of down and dirty, forwards based ruby. It really is apples and oranges here, people. If you want to center on sheer impact, let's face facts, that is the one thing that american football truly revolves around: that one critical point of impact where one guy unloads everything he has on another and slams him forcibly to the ground. This is the source of football's many traumatic injuries (which, however, DO NOT far outnumber those sustained in rugby). In contrast, for the flow of a rugby match, one cannot do this regularly throughout an eighty minute match, it's simply too dangerous for the tackler himself (Not to say it doesn't happen: it does, it just isn't as influential a factor as in football). If you want to look at the sheer exhaustion and overall pain suffered during and after an event, ruggers win fair and square. Numbers game again: you get hit more times per game, the game lasts longer, the game does not take a 15 second break after every play, the halftime is shorter, there are no quarter breaks, no time outs, the field is significantly larger, and you wear no hard padding (soft padding is allowed, and in football it is true that the pads don't take the edge off quite the way most folks think it does, but it helps a lot more than no padding). Honestly, rugby hurts more. Rugby is more physically exhausting. On the other hand, football will injure you (read: break bones, tear ligaments, and kill brain cells) more severely on a more regular basis. If I have to pick which is "tougher", though, it's rugby: the fact that you spend eighty minutes constantly running, hitting people, and being hit by other people means that you are balancing pain and exhaustion (read: complete inability to move for 2-3 hours post game) against proper form and strategy, which is near impossible after you've run 4.5 miles and have hit or have been hit 70+ times. Side: Rugby
|
